Monday, April 6, 2015

For me the Magisterium has not changed before and after Vatican Council II.

I accept the Magisterium of the Catholic Church according to magisterial documents.I reject the contemporary magisterium i.e persons in power,on the subjects ecclesiology, and soteriology.Since they use an irrational premise, inference and conclusion.The Magisterium says it is necessary ( Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent,Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc).

Pope Francis is my pope but he is using an irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents. His conclusion is irrational on Vatican Council II. It is based on the irrational premise and inference.

For me the magisterial teaching of the Church documents (and not the contemporary magisterium i.e the persons in power) support the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( AG 7,LG 14, CCC 1257,845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20 etc) 1

Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, before and after Vatican Council II support Fr.Leonard Feeney and those four Catholic professors of theology, expelled by pro-Boston College.

This may seem confusing since it is the magisterium which has a confusing position

For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church knows of

no means of eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and it also says God tis not limited to the Sacraments. This is like saying every one needs to enter the Church but some do not.

The Magisterium interprets Vatican Council II Ad Gentes 7 as saying all need faith and baptism for salvation but being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are exceptions, since these cases are personally known to us . This is contradictory and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.

This same dual position is there in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc.The error comes from Cardinal Marchetti's Letter in 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The first part of the Letter affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The second part contradicted the first part when it assumed there were known exceptions to the dogma, i.e being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of water, without the baptism of water, and in personally known cases in the present times. Since it was inferred that these cases were personally known ( false premise), it was inferred (false inference) that these explicit cases contradicted the teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation. So it was concluded (false conclusion) that Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils and saints. This is not true if the false premise is not used by the Magisterium.-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council in general is being interpreted with an irrationality.Catholics do not know that there is a choice.Eliminate the premise and the Council dramatically changes http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/vatican-council-in-general-it-is-being.html

How can everyone be wrong and only you be correct

Two standards on doctrine

The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015

The inference is since the dead are visible to us on earth, those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance being explicit ( visible in the flesh) become exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So it is concluded that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So it is concluded that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition, it has the hermeneutic of rupture.

what theology,

The post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.Since it assumes that defacto( in fact in the present times,explicitly) there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.So it is a theology which assumes there is salvation outside the Church even though we cannot know of any one saved without 'faith and baptism'.

what Tradition.

Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils, do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc.

Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma.Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.

Yet with the false premise and inference is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.

Do you accept the baptism of desire?

Yes. I believe a Catechuman who has an implicit desire for the baptism of water and dies before he receives it can be saved. Since God will provide the means for him to receive the baptism of water. It has been the experience of saints, including St. Francis Xavier that some people returned from the dead only to be baptised by them with the baptism of water.

Irrational premise, Irrational inference, Non traditional conclusion

The secular media uses anirrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".They then make an irrational inference which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.

Exclusivist ecclesiology?The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.Who agrees with you?

We are saved by belief in Jesus, " Whoever believes in me has eternal life," I don't have to believe in anything else the church teaches to be saved.

Lionel:

We cannot separate Jesus from the Church which he founded. It is through the Catholic Church that we have received the Bible, our form of Church worship, the belief in the Trinity and the belief in Jesus.

The Church also teaches that God is love and wants us to be happy with Him for all eternity in Heaven but Hell exists and many people are going there.

St. Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises asks to meditate on Hell on how there are people there for only one mortal sin. There are people there who loved God but due to sin, God's justice sent them to Hell.

There would be people in Hell, who believed in Jesus but did not follow the will of God as taught in the Catholic Church, the only true Church.

So of what good is it to say 'Lord, Lord...' but then to go to Hell.

We are 'by belief in Jesus' was a personal opinin of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, along with King Henry VII.Yes belief in Jesus is important for salvation but so also is the Church.

Befeore Martin Luther there was no Protestant Bible or Protestant doctrine.Now there are so many new churches or communities.

So why would you want to choose the teaching of one person, instead of that which has come from the time of Jesus?.